In fact, I fully agree with your argument, but I had understood that
both examples in the initial post where of the first type. The first
one is a paper in a journal, the second one a chapter in an edited
book. So Lisa, keep bith views in mind!
Le 5 févr. 09 à 15:15, Lou Burnard a écrit :
> With some trepidation, I venture to disagree slightly with the
> Council Chairman on this topic.
> My view is that a full bibliographic description should include
> biblScope inside the imprint when the work being described is only a
> part of some other work for example, if the biblStruct title might
> be something like "Artichoke - Axolotl (Encylopaedia Vegetiana vol
> 3)". When, by contrast, the work being described is the whole thing,
> and we just want to reference a part of it in the description, then
> the biblScope belongs as a sibling of the imprint, rather than its
> child. The latter seems to me the more usual case -- e.g. where we
> cite an analytic title.
> But maybe I am dissecting angels on a pin. Or something. Speak up
> Laurent Romary wrote:
>> In both cases, I would put the page information in the <imprint>,.
>> First to maintain some consistency accross the encoding, but also
>> to =20
>> keep to the meaning of <imprint> (cf. =
>> : that should contain: "the specific location of the material being
>> cited within its containing publication".